Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 17:59, said:
How can results about AGW be clear in such a short period. Are we really so vain as to suggest our presence, by way of a blip in the timeline of this planet, is sufficient to put climate change into some kind of context. it's ridiculous.
Not fair you left out my point about the optical depth in the 15um band. In short, it is clear that the optical depth facing out into space is less translucent and more opaque. (Note: We are not talking about light pollution blocking out the stars, or jet contrails either!)
The point is the effects are present, are measurable and accurately, no less. As I said the cause remains debateable, though many will suggest water vapor is the cause of global warming, whereas others that it is a feedback. Dr. Susan Solomon, of NOAA fame, had stated that in the troposphere it appeared that the water vapor content appears to be lower then several years back, while at the same time it appears that the Stratosphere water vapor content was increasing. This is a problem for scientist, as many models suggest warming of the atmosphere should increase water vapor in the troposphere.
All of this just goes to show we really do not have a clear signal as to root cause and effect are. (I had hoped n 2002, when NCAR had set up the lidar testing range in the US South West, they would have done experiment to hetrodyne CO2 to try to verify the density. (It was to be a simple experiment in which I had hoped that a satellite and ground station equipped wth lasers snd mirrors could pump up CO2 energy states to try to measure the resident altitude for the bulk of the CO2. (When the experiment then evolved in 2004, to using GPS and atmospheric sodium, well needless to say, I realized the opportunity was lost.)) However, that there is a change in atmospheric heat flow appears certain.
As to politics, as long as we are generally talkng about how it works in relation to climate change that is appropriate. The issue is when someone suggests that their pov is the only correct pov and their political interest says so. In that regard, it is science that must prove the point, not political affiliation, or economic theory..., does that help clarify the difference?